While it remains a long shot of happening, Cowboys owner Jerry Jones is actually entertaining the idea of bringing back cornerback Adam “Pacman” Jones according to a report by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.
Jones apparently isn’t concerned about Pacman’s off-field issues and is willing to look past the fact that he could be facing more legal problems stemming from an incident in which three men claimed that he hired a hit man to kill them in 2007. (Although to be fair, police have said that they’re not actively investigating the case even though it remains open, so it would appear that Pacman won’t be charged with anything.)
Even if it’s a long shot that the Cowboys bring back Pacman, it’s baffling that Jones is even considering it. Outside of the potential headache that Pacman is off field, the Cowboys have a couple of young corners in Mike Jenkins and Orlando Scandrick that they’re trying to develop. If Pacman were re-signed, Dallas essentially risks stunting the growth of those two players and for what? To have Pacman play until he gets into trouble?
I thought Jones and the Cowboys were trying to move away from some of the locker room issues that they’ve had in the past? They released T.O. because Tony Romo and offensive coordinator Jason Garrett couldn’t work with him and now Jones is ready to bring back another potential distraction. It just doesn’t make any sense.
Pacman can still play. When he wasn’t riding out a suspension last year, he was productive in coverage, was a reliable tackler and showed some big-play potential in returning punts. But it’s not a matter of if he’ll get into trouble off the field – it’s when. The guy fights with everybody (including his own bodyguards) and can’t be trusted.
Jones seemingly can’t resist adding talent at any cost and he can’t help but believe that he can turn a troubled player around. But he needs to take a pass on this one and keep his team moving in the right direction. Nobody said he had to fill his locker room with choir boys, but that doesn’t mean he should take a risk by signing (or re-signing in this case) malcontents either.
According to a report by ESPN.com, Brett Favre underwent arthroscopic surgery to repair a torn biceps in his throwing arm, but it’s still unclear at this point if he’ll comeback this season.
A month ago, Favre tried some non-surgical procedures in efforts to get back onto the field this season. He had cortisone injections and also tried exercise therapies that included weight lifting in efforts to release the damaged tendon naturally. But neither worked because he was still having trouble in throwing sessions and that’s why he opted to have surgery.
If the surgery worked and he’s able to throw at or near 100% without any pain, he’s expected to come back. But if he were still limited after testing the arm, then his most recent comeback would appear to be dead in the water.
One thing is for sure: Favre wants to come back. He wouldn’t have gone through all this trouble if he didn’t have intentions of playing. But the problem (outside of whether or not he can still throw the ball without pain) is that the Vikings want to see him throw in one of their camps. They wrap up their OTA sessions this week, so that means if they’re going to sign him, it’ll be before training camp starts in another month.
It’s a waiting game now; if Favre can throw without pain, then the Vikings will probably sign him and get him into camp. If he’s still having trouble throwing, then his comeback will be derailed, possibly forever. It’s all on Favre’s biceps now. (Or so it would appear.)
Tim Joyce from Real Clear Sports feels that Roger Federer’s recent win at the French Open shouldn’t matter as much as most think. Joyce believes that, because of Rafael Nadal’s absence in the final, Federer doesn’t deserve the high praise.
When a Grand Slam tournament loses its star player and main attraction, there’s often a tendency for a sepulchral mood to cloak the on-court proceedings following such a shock to its system. This feeling usually lasts a day or two before the tournament reboots itself and seemingly gains a new destiny and sense of purpose.
But … would such a victory without having any obstacles – that is to say Nadal – detract from the accomplishment? Yes and no. It’d be patently unfair to diminish the achievement on the grounds that his draw opened up. No one seemed to complain when Agassi beat journeyman Andrei Medvedev for his only Paris crown (but then again Agassi did have to defeat defending champion Carlos Moya in the fourth round en route to the French title). There have been many Slam titles won in the Open era where the eventual champion was the beneficiary of an easy draw. And Roger has after all been to the last three finals at Roland Garros so he’s been ever so close – except in the finals when he has made nary a dent in Nadal’s clay armor. So logic would dictate that he’s due a lucky year, that he’s put in the grueling work on clay and he does have several Masters Series titles on the red dirt.
However, a Federer triumph would lack the drama that this achievement would warrant, in fact demand. Would Nadal finally winning at Wimbledon have been as dramatic and important if he had defeated Djokovic or Murray in as close a contest? No, not even close. The fact that he beat Federer on The Roger’s sacred turf is what made last year’s epic match so eternal and wondrous. It was fitting, correct and poetic that Nadal’s win last year on the sport’s biggest stage came against his chief rival.
I appreciate Joyce’s reasoning as he gives an even-handed approach to Federer’s success. If Federer had faced Nadal in the final, the match would definitely not have gone in three sets, and Federer might not have raised that trophy in the pouring rain. (Who knows, due to the lack of a retractable roof, they may have had to postpone a longer match until tomorrow.) Also, I believe that if Nadal were completely healthy during this tournament, he would have eliminated Soderling and given Federer an excellent effort in the finals.
Nevertheless, this is the best tennis I’ve seen Roger Federer play in a long time. It’s funny, because in the quarter and semifinals he didn’t seem to really come alive until the third sets, when he was behind. In the finals against Soderling he was at the top of his game. He even added a seemingly new drop shot at the front of the net which fooled Soderling all day. He displayed the type of dominance we’re used to seeing in Federer.
Joyce makes an interesting point, though: Nadal’s victory at Wimbledon on Federer’s beloved surface was truly amazing, and competition at it’s finest. Nobody expected Nadal to outmatch Federer in England that day, but he did. To this day, Federer has not beat Nadal in the finals at the Spaniard’s favorite Grand Slam. Because of this, Joyce has a valid argument. Federer was the best player at this year’s French Open, but it is a qualified win. Federer beat Soderling, who had a really tough time against Nadal. Thus, Federer making easy work of Soderling does make one think: Nadal has gotten the best of Federer over the last two years (except at the 2007 Wimbledon) and has dominated at Roland Garros. If Nadal loses to Soderling, something is terribly wrong.
Understandably, this debate can lead to a myriad of statistics that aren’t, in my opinion, practical to tennis. Federer’s older, Nadal’s younger, Federer’s healthy now, Nadal is injured, who was better in their prime, blah blah. Federer played incredibly at this year’s French Open and he is deserving of the championship.
What we should all be looking forward to is this year’s Wimbledon. With Federer’s confidence at a current high and Nadal coming back from giving his knees a break, it should be another beauty. That assumes, of course, that the two meet again. There’s always Andy Murray and one of America’s finest (sarcasm intended) standing in their way.
The Lakers survived a tough test, but beat the Magic, 101-96, in overtime.
The officiating was pretty awful in this game, especially in the first quarter and down the stretch. There was a series of calls late in the game that were all questionable and all went in the Lakers’ favor. Mickael Pietrus was called for a bogus foul on a Kobe Bryant drive, Hedo Turkoglu was called for a cheap offensive foul which wiped away a nice little jumper, and Lamar Odom drilled Courtney Lee on his driving layup attempt with less than ten seconds to play in regulation, and no foul was called. Orlando’s last best chance to win was Lee’s alley-oop attempt with 0.6 seconds to play, but the lob pass was a little too deep and he was unable to convert the shot.
The Lakers executed well in overtime, and Odom uncharacteristically made two clutch free throws to put the Lakers up by five with 0:22 to play. J.J. Redick and Rashard Lewis had a couple of tough, contested three point attempts to cut into the lead, but time expired with a pair of misses.
I can’t help but leave this game thinking that if not for the help from the officials, the Lakers would have lost this game in regulation. I guess that’s just home court advantage, but it really seemed like the refs took over the game down the stretch instead of letting the players battle it out.
Kobe had 29 points, eight assists, four rebounds and seven turnovers. Pau Gasol added 24 points and 10 boards, and Odom once again had a good game off the bench, posting 19 points and eight boards. If he keeps playing like this, the Lakers will have to re-sign him this offseason.
Orlando got great play from Lewis (34 points) and Turkoglu (22 points), and while Dwight Howard had 17 points, 16 rebounds, four assists, four blocks and four steals, he also had seven turnovers, which is waaaaaaay too many for a big man. He spent a lot of time complaining to the refs when he lost the ball instead of getting back on defense.
The problem for the Magic is that they aren’t getting much production from their supporting cast. The rest of the Magic went 8 for 31 from the field, lowlighted by Rafer Alston’s 1 for 8 performance. He seems bothered by Jameer Nelson’s presence, but the Magic need a fourth and fifth guy to make some shots.
The Lakers are doing a good job of rotating and keeping the Magic from getting easy baskets, but Orlando had a ton of open shots in the first half and just couldn’t convert.
How many of you know that the World Cup qualifiers are in full swing? I admit some kind of hazy knowledge of their existence, but it seems taken for granted that the U.S. team will make it into the Finals without any trouble. For those of you with at least a passing interest in next year’s World Cup in South Africa, I present a nice little article about our team written by Jonah Freedman over at Sports Illustrated:
Well, that was a relief. The U.S. national team emerged from its toughest week yet of 2010 World Cup qualifying, bruised but standing tall. After getting abused and flattened in Costa Rica 3-1 last Wednesday, the Americans responded by rallying on Honduras 2-1 Saturday at Soldier Field, its first comeback win in World Cup qualifying in 24 years. The end result is that the U.S. stands in second place in the Hexagonal final round of CONCACAF qualifying with a 3-1-1 record and 10 points.
OK, if you’re still with me let’s remember that the Major League Soccer season has started, so if you get tired of baseball after hockey and basketball finish up, find your local team and take a gander.
